Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Well, it seems our President has been lying to us. Surprise, surprise. Apparently an al Qaeda splinter group called Ansar-al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack early on and this information was on secured diplomatic wires within two hours of the start of the raid. Including, according to Reuters, the White House Situation Room.

The most common argument coming from the left right now on the issue of whether or not President Obama knew the attack on our mission in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack relies heavily on the reasoning that Obama didn't want to "shoot first and aim later", as he (incorrectly) accused Romney of doing regarding his critique of the US Embassy's statement on free speech and the Egyptian protests. The problem with that argument is that, while it is commendable to want to get all of the facts first, the reality is, he didn't. Apparently when he made that statement about the video on Sept. 12th, he didn't know that the White House also released a statement distancing themselves from the embassy's statement, mirroring Romney's 10pm release, at 11pm on Sept. 11th.

Perhaps he was concerned with not wanting to damage whatever progress he has made with the members of the Muslim Brotherhood that have been visiting the White House recently, so instead he made the executive decision to introduce a whipping boy to keep the heat off the real perpetrators. How else to explain his blaming events on a Coptic christian in California who made a stupid, obscure video instead of the very real terrorist threat ever rising in North Africa?

The excuse of "He didn't want to jump to conclusions" is specious, because he did, in reality, 'jump to conclusions'. Unfortunately, the conclusion he jumped to was that, as per usual with Mr. Obama, America is somehow to blame for everything. And this time, instead of a straw man for the usual speech denouncing whatever it is he wants to distance himself from, he had a real man on whom to pin the blame. The problem isn't the terrorists, you see, it's our pesky right to free speech.

By the way, why is it award-winning 'art' to fantasize about Jesus' sex life, but a crime to do the same with Mohammad?

That real man languishes even now - weeks after his arrest, and in solitary confinement - in prison on a parole violation.

Where is the outrage over this?

Yes, the fact that the President lied about the events in Libya are concerning, but no more so than the fact that he is okay with a US resident being thrown in jail and labeled a murderer by society so that he doesn't take a political hit on his campaign stump claim that al Qaeda is on the run. What is really mind-boggling is the fact that the media - the fourth estate, our vital watchdogs - are trying their best to sweep it all under the rug. Who would have thought that the American media wouldn't question a Nobel Peace Prize winner thinking it's okay to jail people for speaking their minds when his political life is on the line? Rush Limbaugh likened it to Woodward and Bernstein covering up Watergate for Nixon.

This isn't the only example of Obama's refusal to cop to terrorism being a major issue. Let's not forget the Ft. Hood shooting that claimed thirteen service members and injured dozens of others. The Obama administration to this dayrefuses to call it an act of terror, preferring instead to label it 'workplace violence'. Even though Hasan was mentored by Anwar al-Awlaki. Even though he shouted 'Allahu akbar!' as he murdered members of our military on home soil. Even though he had a history of support for jihad. Even though he continues to follow the al Qaeda playbook on working the judicial/military tribunal systems in the event of capture - right down to suddenly growing a beard and then refusing to shave it for religious reasons (in reality it is about flaunting army hygiene rules and quite effectively putting the brakes of postponement on his impending trial).

It's interesting how our president is so concerned about not wanting to have a knee-jerk response to terrorists, but is quite comfortable throwing American citizens and military personnel under the bus. Doesn't this speak to character? Is this really the best man to be in charge of our country and our military?

Isn't this just as important as who knew what, and when, in Benghazi?

It isn't just that the White House knew within two hours that Benghazi was a terrorist attack - although finding out our president has been baldly lying to us is never 'optimal' and deserves a high level of scrutiny to determine just how big the lie might be. It's that we now know that the White House, for more than two weeks (and in front of an international audience), blamed and demonized a private citizen for exercising his right to free speech when they knew damn well that, at best, that video was just a convenient excuse for al Qaeda to gin up cover for their actions.

Can you imagine the hue and cry if it had been a republican president who had sat quietly by as Nakoula was taken escorted from his house at midnight and placed in custody for a parole violation and some friendly "quizzing" after spending weeks demonizing him in every forum available? It's not hard to envision the protesters now, camped out near both the prison where he awaits his fate and in front of the White House, signs in hand calling for impeachment or arrest for war crimes and maybe even a burning effigy or two. There would be a whole cottage industry of 'Free Nakoula!' t-shirts and bumper stickers, quite possibly with a picture of him pensively staring off into the distance, towel draped at a jaunty angle on his head. Celebrities would speak out against the dictatorship that had incarcerated this innocent man....oh, I'm sorry, the celebrities come out for homicidal maniacs and cop killers, not free speech. Silly me. You get the picture, though.

Have we really reached the point where, a mere eleven years out from 9/11, we are okay with assuming the terrorists are innocent and Americans guilty?

If the American president doesn't have the backs of American citizens and our most basic Constitutional rights, who does?